2M - Politics in wartime: the 1915 coalition
Learn how the First World War split the Liberals, strengthened Labour and produced a coalition whose survival depended on Conservative support.
From party truce to coalition
Britain entered the war in August 1914 under Asquith's Liberal government. A broad parliamentary truce initially reduced normal party conflict, but agreement on fighting the war did not ensure agreement on how to conduct it. Some Liberals opposed intervention or feared the expansion of coercive state power. In Labour, Ramsay MacDonald resigned the parliamentary leadership because he opposed Britain's involvement; Arthur Henderson supported the war effort.
By spring 1915 military difficulties undermined confidence in Asquith. The controversy over shortages of shells raised questions about preparation and the organisation of supply. The unsuccessful Dardanelles campaign and disputes at the Admiralty added pressure; Admiral Fisher's resignation deepened the political crisis. These problems connected military performance to the competence of government.
Asquith formed a coalition in May 1915, bringing leading Conservatives and Labour's Henderson into government. Bonar Law, the Conservative leader, became Colonial Secretary, while Lloyd George moved from the Treasury to the new Ministry of Munitions. The coalition could spread responsibility and draw on a wider political base. It was intended to strengthen the conduct of war rather than reconcile every ideological difference.
Coalition government
A government formed by politicians from more than one party, usually through agreement to cooperate over shared objectives.
The change also weakened distinct Liberal ownership of government. Conservatives now possessed office and influence, while Labour gained experience of national administration. Coalition made immediate cooperation possible, but it created the conditions for future disputes over leadership, responsibility and party independence.
Lloyd George and Bonar Law
Lloyd George developed a reputation for energy at the Ministry of Munitions. Greater coordination, new factories and arrangements with employers and unions helped expand supplies. His success supported the argument that a more concentrated and active executive could overcome obstacles. His later move to the War Office reinforced his position as a possible alternative to Asquith.
By 1916 the war's cost and uncertain outcome increased impatience. The introduction of conscription had already exposed disagreement within Liberalism about compulsion. Lloyd George and allies sought a smaller body to direct the war, initially proposing arrangements which would reduce Asquith's daily control. The negotiations became a struggle over whether Asquith could remain premier with real authority. A hostile press and the withdrawal of support by key colleagues made his position untenable; he resigned in December.
Lloyd George formed a new government with essential Conservative backing. Bonar Law's support was decisive: a Liberal politician could head the coalition because Conservatives accepted his leadership and supplied much of its parliamentary strength. Bonar Law served as Chancellor and Leader of the Commons, handling parliamentary and party relationships. Their partnership combined Lloyd George's public dynamism with Bonar Law's management of Conservative support.
The small War Cabinet and developing Cabinet Secretariat helped coordinate decisions and record them more systematically. This did not give the Prime Minister unlimited control over commanders or eliminate controversy about strategy. Nevertheless, it expanded central direction and altered the working machinery of government. Judging leadership requires separating administrative innovation from the claim that one politician alone won the war.
The Liberal split
The change of premier divided the Liberal Party because Asquith remained its leader while Lloyd George led the government. Asquith's supporters regarded the removal of their leader as a betrayal; Lloyd George's supporters prioritised his conduct of the war. Personal rivalry interacted with disagreements over conscription, government powers and cooperation with Conservatives.
The split was therefore more damaging than an ordinary cabinet reshuffle. MPs, local organisations and newspapers had to choose between rival claims to Liberal legitimacy. Shared traditions such as free trade did not erase the question of whom to support in Parliament and at elections. Lloyd George's dependence on Conservatives made reunion more difficult, because an independent Liberal revival could threaten the coalition he led.
The Maurice debate in May 1918 deepened the division. General Frederick Maurice challenged government statements about troop strength. Asquith sought an inquiry; Lloyd George treated the challenge as a test of confidence. The Commons division exposed the distance between the two Liberal groups. The issue mattered politically even though Liberal decline cannot be reduced to that one vote.
War did not automatically destroy Liberalism. It was a crisis which leaders managed through decisions that created lasting organisational divisions. The Liberals also faced Labour's growing ability to represent working people and an enlarged electorate. The split weakened their response to those changes. A causal judgement should therefore connect wartime rivalry with electoral and social pressures rather than assuming that all decline began and ended in December 1916.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account